Re: 1.5.0-alpha1 tarballs up for testing/signing
Karl Fogel wrote:
> Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> writes:
>> +1 to cmpilato's points about signing of releases being important and
>> orthogonal to perfection.
>> I would say that if a potential "alpha release" suffers from major
>> problems that seem to have been recently or accidentally introduced
>> and can be fixed in a couple of days, then discard that potential
>> release and try again, but if it suffers from major problems that have
>> been around for a while and are on the schedule for fixing later, go
>> ahead and sign and release it with these problems stated plainly.
> Okay. Let's stick with signing, then. It doesn't appear to have been
> all that onerous for alpha1 anyway.
I'd like to stick with signing as well. We don't have to have 3
sigs/platform for an alpha, for alpha1 I only asked for 2. But it does
help me sleep better at night, knowing that other people have looked at
the potential release (and I'm not the only one to blame if something
> Hyrum, are you planning to roll an alpha2 with bindings fixes?
Sure, I'll do that this afternoon.
Received on 2008-02-26 17:43:38 CET
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev